Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 3 cited by

Photometry of outer Solar System objects from the Dark Energy Survey II: a joint analysis of trans-Neptunian absolute magnitudes, colors, lightcurves and dynamics

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the 696 DES TNOs are consistent with just two birth populations—NIRB and NIRF—whose size and variability distributions are the same in every dynamical class, with the cold classicals being pure NIRF and excited…

desk verdict Large DES TNO analysis with a solid two-color picture, but inconsistent Bayes-factor sign conventions and an untested separability assumption make the central claims unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.01551 v1 pith:5L5N6P7Z submitted 2025-01-02 astro-ph.EP astro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.data-an

Pedro H. Bernardinelli , Gary M. Bernstein , T. M. C. Abbott , M. Aguena , S. S. Allam , D. Brooks , A. Carnero Rosell , J. Carretero
show 38 more authors
L. N. da Costa M. E. S. Pereira T. M. Davis J. De Vicente S. Desai H. T. Diehl P. Doel S. Everett B. Flaugher J. Frieman J. García-Bellido E. Gaztanaga R. A. Gruendl G. Gutierrez K. Herner S. R. Hinton D. L. Hollowood K. Honscheid D. J. James K. Kuehn O. Lahav S. Lee J. L. Marshall J. Mena-Fernández R. Miquel J. Myles A. A. Plazas Malagón S. Samuroff E. Sanchez B. Santiago I. Sevilla-Noarbe M. Smith E. Suchyta G. Tarle D. L. Tucker V. Vikram A. R. Walker N. Weaverdyck
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.EPastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRphysics.data-an PACS 96.30.-t
keywords trans-NeptunianobjectsKuiperbeltGaussianmixturemodellightcurveamplitudesabsolutemagnitudedistributionTNOcolorsdynamicalclassificationDarkEnergySurvey
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the trans-Neptunian region contains exactly two physically distinct 'birth' populations, visible as two Gaussian clusters in griz color space, and that every present-day dynamical class is a mixture of these two populations. Using 696 TNOs from the Dark Energy Survey with $5.5 < H_r < 8.2$, it finds that objects in the near-IR-bright (NIRB) and near-IR-faint (NIRF) color classes each share a common absolute-magnitude and lightcurve-amplitude distribution regardless of current orbit. Cold classicals are consistent with being purely NIRF, while hot classicals, scattering, and detached objects are about 70% NIRB, with resonances varying. Because each color family's physical properties are independent of dynamical state, the paper argues the colors tag the region of birth. If right, this gives a direct observational handle on where different Kuiper belt populations formed and how Neptune's migration mixed them.

What carries the argument

The argument rides on a mixture-model likelihood for the full catalog. Each dynamical class $d$ is modeled as an unknown mixture $p_d = \sum_\beta f_{\beta|d}\,p_\beta$ of physical subpopulations, and within a subpopulation the orbital, color, magnitude, and lightcurve-amplitude distributions are assumed separable: $p_\beta(c,H_r,A,P) = p_\beta(c)p_\beta(H_r)p_\beta(P)p_\beta(A)$. The color terms come from a Gaussian mixture model fitted to $g-r$, $r-i$, $i-z$ colors; the magnitude term is a rolling power law; the amplitude term is a $\beta$ distribution; and the orbital term is an indicator for the dynamical class. Measurement noise enters through posterior 'swarms' per object from a prior Markov chain, and the parameters are sampled with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo, with model comparisons made by Bayesian evidence ratios. The load-bearing step is the shared-parameter test: if the $H_r$ and $A$ distributions of each color class are the same for every dynamical class, then color can be read as a birthmark.

What would settle it

Re-fit the full DES sample allowing the mean lightcurve amplitude (or the H slope) to depend on position within the NIRB or NIRF color locus; if the Bayesian evidence ratio favors the correlated model, the shared-distribution conclusion collapses. Alternatively, check the two-Gaussian color model against a larger sample such as LSST's first TNO catalog: if more than about 1% of objects fall outside both Gaussians beyond photometric error, the two-birth-population picture fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the DES data support a model in which each of the two GMM color components, NIRB and NIRF, has a population with size ($H_r$) and variability ($A$) distributions that are the same in every dynamical state, supporting their assignment as birth populations. The paper further finds that all objects share a common rolling power-law $p(H_r)$, that NIRF objects are significantly more variable than NIRB objects, that cold classicals are pure NIRF while hot classical, scattered, and detached objects are $\approx 70\%$ NIRB, and that inclination distributions of the NIRB and NIRF members differ within the hot classicals and some resonances. Beyond the two-component picture, the NIRB members of hot classicals are bluer on average than detached or scattered NIRBs, and the CC NIRFs favor the redder end of the NIRF sequence, indicating radial stratification within each birth population.

Load-bearing premise

Inside each color family, an object's color, size, and lightcurve amplitude are assumed to be statistically independent of one another, and this separability is asserted without being tested.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The cold classical Kuiper belt formed entirely in the outer (NIRF) birth region, with no detectable NIRB contamination.
  • Hot classicals, scattering, and detached objects share a common NIRB fraction near 70%, implying a common formation footprint.
  • NIRB and NIRF objects share a rolling power-law absolute-magnitude distribution, so planetesimal formation made similar size spectra across both birth regions.
  • NIRF objects are more photometrically variable than NIRB objects even when cold classicals are removed, so variability is a birth characteristic.
  • Inclination distributions differ between NIRB and NIRF members of the hot classicals and some resonances, so present-day dynamics retains memory of birth location.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • I infer that the redder-than-average NIRB hot classicals versus detached NIRBs imply a radial color gradient inside the inner birth region, not just a two-zone disk.
  • The paper's separability assumption could be tested by checking whether mean lightcurve amplitude varies along the NIRB color locus; LSST data should make that test decisive.
  • The discrepancies in population counts with other surveys (e.g. cold classicals 1.5–1.8 times smaller) suggest a joint cross-survey analysis will be needed before the absolute numbers are treated as settled.
  • If the NIRF/NIRB splitting survives the larger LSST sample, the color families could be used as a tracer of the primordial disk's radial composition gradient.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a joint statistical analysis of 696 Dark Energy Survey TNOs with 5.5 < H_r < 8.2, modeling the intrinsic color distribution as a two-component Gaussian mixture ('NIRB' and 'NIRF') and then, assuming separability of color, absolute magnitude, orbital parameters, and lightcurve amplitude within each component, inferring the H_r and A distributions and the NIRB fraction for each dynamical class. The main claims are that within each color component the H_r and A distributions are shared across dynamical classes, supporting the interpretation of the color components as birth populations; that cold classicals are pure NIRF while excited populations are roughly 70% NIRB with resonance-dependent variations; that the NIRB and NIRF components have distinct inclination distributions in some classes; and that there is evidence for color stratification within the components. Goodness-of-fit tests give p = 0.918 for the color model and p = 0.860 for the H_r model.

Significance. If correct, these results would provide strong, quantitative constraints on the formation locations and migration histories of TNOs, and the methodological framework for joint inference from catalogs with heterogeneous photometry is a valuable contribution. The paper's strengths include a careful treatment of selection functions, full propagation of per-object measurement uncertainties through the likelihood, explicit goodness-of-fit testing, and a clear statement of the intended public release of code and chains. However, the headline conclusions rest on Bayesian evidence ratios whose sign convention is inconsistent across sections, and on a separability assumption that the paper's own Section 5 contradicts. Both issues are load-bearing, so the present version cannot be accepted without substantial revision.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.1; Appendix B; Sections 4.2-4.4] The Bayesian evidence ratio sign convention is inconsistent across the paper. Section 4.1 defines R between H1 (one shared p(A) for all NIRB and one for all NIRF objects) and H2 (per-dynamical-class parameters), states that R > 2.30, 3.45, 4.61 are decisive in favor of H2, and then reports R = 5.016, 6.143 and R = 13.556 as 'decisive evidence in favor of the shared-parameter models.' Appendix B instead defines R = log p(D|H2)/p(D|H1) with H2 the shared-parameter model, so positive R favors shared. Section 4.3 uses R = 62.185 to 'completely rule out' a common f_NIRB, which is coherent only if positive R favors distinct models. These conventions are mutually incompatible. Because the code and chains are not yet public, I cannot determine which convention produced each quoted value. If the Section 4.1 convention is applied literally, the reported R values for shared p(A) and p(H) would actually disfavor the shared-parameter models, reversing the paper's central claim; if the Appendix B convention is used, the Section 4.3 exclusion of common f_NIRB would reverse. The authors must restate a single convention, recompute or reinterpret every R value, and confirm which conclusions survive.
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (19); Sections 5.1 and 5.2] Equation (19) assumes that within a family β the distributions of c, H_r, A, and P are separable. This assumption is not tested, and the paper's own Section 5 indicates it is violated. Section 5.2 reports that the red and blue halves of the NIRF component have significantly different lightcurve-amplitude sharpness parameters (s differs by 3.1σ, R = -4.552), and Section 5.1 reports that the HC and detached populations have different NIRB+/NIRB- ratios (R = -4.043). These findings mean that color position correlates with A and with dynamical class within the nominal NIRB/NIRF components. The shared p(A) conclusion in Section 4.1 was derived under the two-component model with Eq. (19); if the sub-structure is real, the apparent sharing of p(A) across dynamical classes could be an artifact of mixing components with different A distributions in different proportions. The authors should re-run the shared-H and shared-A tests within each split component (NIRB+, NIRB-, NIRF+, NIRF-) or otherwise demonstrate that the Section 4.1 conclusions are insensitive to the within-component structure.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 6 title] The title 'THE INCLINATION DISTRIBUTION FOR THE NIRB AND NIRB POPULATIONS' should read 'NIRB AND NIRF POPULATIONS'.
  2. [Section 5.1] The uniform prior over the simplex is the Dirichlet(1,1,1) distribution, not the Dirichlet distribution with parameters α_i = -1; please correct the prior or justify the improper choice.
  3. [Section 5.1, Eq. (25)] The condition 'c′1 ≷ 0' is ambiguous; specify c′1 > 0 for NIRB+ and c′1 < 0 for NIRB−.
  4. [Sections 4.2, 4.3, 7.1] There are several typographical errors: 'the CC populations is' (Section 4.3), 'another phyical property' (Section 4.2), and 'Our methodology is will scale gracefully' (Section 7.1).
  5. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B12)-(B14)] The notation p(q|D) is used both for a posterior and for the marginal likelihood ∫df L({q,f}|D), which is confusing; please introduce a distinct symbol such as \tilde{L}(q|D).
  6. [Section 6.2, Figure 12 caption] The statement 'a positive value shows a preference for the two component model' appears inconsistent with the text's use of R = -76.55 to reject a single NIRF component for the Classicals; please clarify which hypotheses this particular evidence ratio compares.
  7. [Section 8 / Code availability] The HMC software and chains are stated to be released only after acceptance; given that the evidence ratios are central and the sign convention is currently ambiguous, making the code and chains available to the referee or in a public repository would materially help verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the shared H_r and A test uses physical measurements not used to define the color classes, though the evidence-ratio sign convention is internally inconsistent and the Eq. 19 separability is untested.

full rationale

The paper's central inference is not a reduction of a prediction to its inputs. The NIRB/NIRF color components are fitted to DES griz colors, but the claim that H_r and A distributions are shared across dynamical classes is tested with absolute magnitudes and lightcurve amplitudes, which are different observables from the colors used to define the classes. The f_NIRB fractions are fitted mixture weights, not out-of-sample predictions, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations to Bernardinelli et al. (2022, 2023) provide the survey selection function, per-object measurement swarms, and the beta-distribution ansatz for p(A); these are prior measurement products and stated functional assumptions, not an unverified uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives, so they are not load-bearing circularity. Two caveats belong to correctness rather than circularity: (1) the separability assumption p_beta(c, H_r, A, P) = p_beta(c) p_beta(H_r) p_beta(P) p_beta(A) in Eq. 19 is stated but not tested, and the paper itself notes departures from the two-component model in Section 5; if colors correlate with size or variability within a birth population, the inferred shared distributions would be biased. (2) The sign convention for the log Bayes factor R is used inconsistently: Section 4.1 defines H1=shared and H2=separate, says positive R favors H2, yet reports R=5.016, 6.143, and 13.556 as decisive evidence for shared distributions; Appendix B's Eq. B13 also makes positive R favor separate per-class parameters, while Section 4.3 uses positive R to rule out a common f_NIRB. Under the Section 4.1 convention, these positive values would actually disfavor the shared-parameter conclusion. This is a serious labeling or interpretation error that must be corrected, but it is not a circular identity between the statistic and the conclusion. The overall circularity score is therefore 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central model rests on a moderately large set of fitted parameters: GMM parameters for two color components, rolling power-law slopes and curvatures for H_r, beta-distribution parameters for lightcurve amplitudes, NIRB fractions per dynamical class, and inclination concentration parameters. The key axioms are the separability of physical properties within each family and the interpretation of colors as birthmarks. No entirely new physical entities are introduced beyond the two latent color classes.

free parameters (15)
  • GMM mean NIRB = mu = (0.609, 0.223, 0.355)
    Fitted to the color distribution of all DES TNOs (Table 1).
  • GMM covariance NIRB = 3x3 matrix in Table 1
    Fitted to the color distribution of all DES TNOs.
  • GMM mean NIRF = mu = (0.902, 0.347, 0.524)
    Fitted to the color distribution of all DES TNOs.
  • GMM covariance NIRF = 3x3 matrix in Table 1
    Fitted to the color distribution of all DES TNOs.
  • GMM amplitudes = f_NIRB = 0.446, f_NIRF = 0.554
    Fitted to the full sample; depends on sample composition.
  • Rolling power law slope NIRB = theta_NIRB = 0.856 ± 0.047
    Fitted to H_r distribution of NIRB objects.
  • Rolling power law curvature NIRB = theta'_NIRB = -0.099 ± 0.059
    Fitted to H_r distribution of NIRB objects.
  • Rolling power law slope NIRF = theta_NIRF = 0.829 ± 0.053
    Fitted to H_r distribution of NIRF objects.
  • Rolling power law curvature NIRF = theta'_NIRF = -0.321 ± 0.073
    Fitted to H_r distribution of NIRF objects.
  • Lightcurve mean amplitude NIRB = Abar_NIRB = 0.118 ± 0.007
    Fitted to lightcurve amplitudes of NIRB objects.
  • Lightcurve sharpness NIRB = s_NIRB = 1.054 ± 0.058
    Fitted to lightcurve amplitudes of NIRB objects.
  • Lightcurve mean amplitude NIRF = Abar_NIRF = 0.151 ± 0.008
    Fitted to lightcurve amplitudes of NIRF objects.
  • Lightcurve sharpness NIRF = s_NIRF = 0.922 ± 0.087
    Fitted to lightcurve amplitudes of NIRF objects.
  • NIRB fraction per dynamical class = CC: 0.019, HC: 0.631, Scattering: 0.686, Detached: 0.710, plus resonance values in Table 2
    Fitted fractions f_NIRB|d for each dynamical class.
  • Inclination concentration parameters = log kappa per class and color (e.g., kappa_NIRF_HC = 20.9, kappa_NIRB_HC = 13.25)
    Fitted von Mises-Fischer concentration parameters for inclination distributions.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Within a family, colors, absolute magnitudes, orbital parameters, and lightcurve amplitudes are independent: pβ(c,Hr,A,P) = pβ(c)pβ(Hr)pβ(P)pβ(A).
    Section 3.2, Eq 19. This factorization is load-bearing for the likelihood but is not tested.
  • domain assumption TNO surface colors were established at birth and are not modified by subsequent migration or surface processing.
    Stated in the Introduction and Section 7.2 as the basis for interpreting NIRB and NIRF as birth populations.
  • domain assumption The observed orbital distribution can be bootstrapped to the full population by weighting each object by the inverse of its selection probability.
    Appendix D, Eq D22. Assumes the observed sample is representative after this weighting, which may not hold for unobserved orbital regions.
  • domain assumption Orbital angles Omega, omega, and M are uniformly distributed within each dynamical class.
    Appendix D, Eq D21. Simplifies completeness integrals but may be violated for resonant or detached populations.
  • ad hoc to paper The rolling power law (Eq 20) and the beta distribution (Eq 21) adequately describe H_r and lightcurve amplitude distributions.
    Section 3.2. Functional forms chosen for convenience; the paper acknowledges other forms can fit equally well.
  • ad hoc to paper The von Mises-Fischer distribution describes inclination distributions.
    Section 6.1, Eq 26. The paper notes poor fits for HC and detached populations.
  • domain assumption The GMM parameters from Section 2 are fixed and not re-fit in the joint analysis.
    Section 3.2. This prevents propagation of color-model uncertainty into the dynamical analysis.
invented entities (2)
  • NIRB color class independent evidence
    purpose: Latent Gaussian component representing a presumed inner birth population of TNOs.
    Emerged from the GMM fit to colors; predicts dynamical-class-dependent fractions f_NIRB that are tested in-sample, but no direct external confirmation exists.
  • NIRF color class independent evidence
    purpose: Latent Gaussian component representing a presumed outer birth population of TNOs.
    Emerged from the GMM fit to colors; predicts cold classicals as purely NIRF and higher variability, tested in-sample.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photometry of outer Solar System objects from the Dark Energy Survey II: a joint analysis of trans-Neptunian absolute magnitudes, colors, lightcurves and dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5L5N6P7Z

@misc{pith2026250101551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photometry of outer Solar System objects from the Dark Energy Survey II: a joint analysis of trans-Neptunian absolute magnitudes, colors, lightcurves and dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5L5N6P7Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.01551}
}
abstract

For the 696 trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs) with absolute magnitudes $5.5 < H_r < 8.2$ detected in the Dark Energy Survey (DES), we characterize the relationships between their dynamical state and physical properties -- namely $H_r$, indicating size; colors, indicating surface composition; and flux variation semi-amplitude $A$, indicating asphericity and surface inhomogeneity. We seek ``birth'' physical distributions that can recreate these parameters in every dynamical class. We show that the observed colors of these TNOs are consistent with 2 Gaussian distributions in $griz$ space, ``near-IR bright'' (NIRB) and ``near-IR faint'' (NIRF), presumably an inner and outer birth population, respectively. We find a model in which both the NIRB and NIRF $H_r$ and $A$ distributions are independent of current dynamical states, supporting their assignment as birth populations. All objects are consistent with a common rolling $p(H_r)$, but NIRF objects are significantly more variable. Cold classicals (CCs) are purely NIRF, while hot classical (HC), scattered, and detached TNOs are consistent with $\approx70\%$ NIRB, and resonances' NIRB fractions show significant variation. The NIRB component of the HCs and of some resonances have broader inclination distributions than the NIRFs, i.e. their current dynamics retains information about birth location. We find evidence for radial stratification within the birth NIRB population, in that HC NIRBs are on average redder than detached or scattered NIRBs; a similar effect distinguishes CCs from other NIRFs. We estimate total object counts and masses of each class within our $H_r$ range. These results will strongly constrain models of the outer solar system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.01551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. g − r, r − i and r − z histograms of 5 × 105 realizations of the model from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. NIRB and NIRF realizations as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Semi-major axes, eccentricities and inclinations for all objects in the DES catalog. The shape of each marker indicates the dynamical classification of the object, and the color scale represents the proba￾bilistic color assignment - objects with |Rc| > 2 are securely assigned to their respective classes. The outliers of Section 2.2 are marked in black. Also shown are the location of major Neptunian mean motion reson… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 68% and 95% posterior contours for the HMC-derived samples for the NIRB (left) and NIRF (right) parameters A¯ and s parameters of the LCA distribution. Each figure contains the posterior for all disjoint sets of objects from the distinct dynamical classes, and the post…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Left: 68% and 95% posterior contours of the NIRB (blue) and NIRF (red) LCA distribution parameters. Right: Visualization of the mean and 68% limits of the cumulative (top) and differential (bottom) distributions for the NIRB and NIRF distributions. The horizontal axis …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Posterior distributions of fNIRB|d after marginalizing over physical hyperparameters of the NIRF and NIRB populations. The vertical axis represents the distinct subsets of the data, and, inside a certain subset, this axis represents the relative probability of the post…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Each panel shows the 68% limits of the data distributions per dynamical class (black) as well as the best-fit p(Hr) distribution multiplied by the selection function for the corresponding dynamical subset (red). In all cases, the data distribution has been constructed …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ternary histograms of (fNIRF, fNIRB+, fNIRB−) posterior samples HC, detached, and scattering populations are plotted as gray points in the three panels. Also plotted are contours of the 3-dimensional Dirichlet distribution that best fits the sampled {fα}. The blue dot…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms of the posterior samples for the inclination distribution concentration log κ, with each row representing one dynamical subpopulation. The blue (red) curves represent the NIRB (NIRF) component, while the black curves represents the case where the two color …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Each panel has differential (top) and cumulative (bottom) histograms of the 68% confidence range of the model inclination distributions fit to the labelled dynamical class, where the model either a single von Mises-Fischer distribution or the sum of two for the NIRF a…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Completeness as a function of Hr (top left), inclination (top right) and the three color pairs (bottom) after marginalizing over the other relevant parameters. While the color and Hr figures show a relative completeness, so that the maximum value of the selection func…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. TNO colours provide new evidence for a past close flyby of another star to the Solar System

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A stellar flyby with a 0.8 solar mass star at 110 au can simultaneously explain the orbital dynamics and colour distribution of trans-Neptunian objects, assuming an initial red-to-grey colour gradient in the primordial disc.

  2. Predictions of the LSST Solar System Yield: Near-Earth Objects, Main Belt Asteroids, Jupiter Trojans, and Trans-Neptunian Objects

    astro-ph.EP 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using the Sorcha survey simulator and the near-final LSST v3.4 cadence, the paper predicts LSST will discover 5.36 million solar system objects, including 5.09 million main-belt asteroids, with 70% of distant populati...

  3. The Surfaces of Small to Mid-Size Plutinos: Evidence of an Association Between Inclination and Surface Type

    astro-ph.EP 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Plutinos with low osculating inclinations are predominantly FaintIR (cold-classical-like) in surface class, an association present at 99.3% significance in a combined sample of 43 plutinos.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command Each re...

    2019

  4. [4]

    R., Gulbis, A

    Adams, E. R., Gulbis, A. A., Benecchi, S. D., et al. 2014, Astronomical Journal, 148, 55, 10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/55

    doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/3/55 2014

  5. [5]

    J., et al

    Alexandersen, M., Gladman, B., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 111, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/111

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/111 2016

  6. [6]

    2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    Astropy Collaboration . 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    ---. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    A., Belskaya, I

    Barucci, M. A., Belskaya, I. N., Fulchignoni, M., & Birlan, M. 2005, The Astronomical Journal, 130, 1291, 10.1086/431957

    doi:10.1086/431957 2005

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    A., Fulchignoni, M., Birlan, M., et al

    Barucci, M. A., Fulchignoni, M., Birlan, M., et al. 2001, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 371, 1150, 10.1051/0004-6361:20010501

    2001 doi

  2. [10]

    C., Batygin, Y

    Batygin, K., Adams, F. C., Batygin, Y. K., & Petigura, E. A. 2020, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab665d

    2020 doi

  3. [11]

    2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 145, 10.3847/PSJ/ace88d

    Beaudoin, M., Gladman, B., Huang, Y., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 145, 10.3847/PSJ/ace88d

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Sako, M., et al. 2020 a , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 247, 32, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab6bd8

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2020 b , The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 28, 10.3847/PSJ/ab9d80

    ---. 2020 b , The Planetary Science Journal, 1, 28, 10.3847/PSJ/ab9d80

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 41, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3914

    ---. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 258, 41, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3914

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    H., Bernstein, G

    Bernardinelli, P. H., Bernstein, G. M., Jindal, N., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 269, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/acf6bf

    2023 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Trilling, D

    Bernstein, G. M., Trilling, D. E., Allen, R. L., et al. 2004, The Astronomical Journal, 128, 1364, 10.1086/422919

    2004 doi

  9. [17]

    2017, 10.48550/arXiv.1701.02434

    Betancourt, M. 2017, 10.48550/arXiv.1701.02434

    2017 doi arXiv

  10. [18]

    J., Deems, S., Furlani, T

    Boerner, T. J., Deems, S., Furlani, T. R., Knuth, S. L., & Towns, J. 2023, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2023: Computing for the Common Good, PEARC '23 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 173–176, 10.1145/3569951.3597559

    2023

  11. [19]

    T., Fremling, C., Morbidelli, A., et al

    Bolin, B. T., Fremling, C., Morbidelli, A., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 521, L29, 10.1093/mnrasl/slad018

    2023 doi

  12. [20]

    W., & Roweis, S

    Bovy, J., Hogg, D. W., & Roweis, S. T. 2011, The Annals of Applied Statistics, 5, 1657, 10.1214/10-AOAS439

    2011 doi

  13. [21]

    2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  14. [22]

    Brown, M. E. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 121, 2804, 10.1086/320391

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 467, 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105352

    ---. 2012, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 40, 467, 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105352

    2012 doi

  16. [24]

    2012, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol

    Brubaker, M., Salzmann, M., & Urtasun, R. 2012, in Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 22, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, ed. N. D. Lawrence & M. Girolami (La Palma, Canary Islands: PMLR), 161--172. h...

    2012

  17. [25]

    E., Schwamb, M

    Buchanan, L. E., Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 9, 10.3847/PSJ/ac42c9

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, , 158, 214, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab480b

    Chen , Y.-T., Gladman , B., Volk , K., et al. 2019, , 158, 214, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab480b

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol

    Collyer , C., Pike , R., Alexandersen , M., et al. 2024, in AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 56, AAS/Division for Planetary Sciences Meeting Abstracts, 211.08

    2024

  20. [28]

    L., Lawler, S

    Crompvoets, B. L., Lawler, S. M., Volk, K., et al. 2022, The Planetary Science Journal, 3, 113, 10.3847/PSJ/ac67e0

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    M., Dalle Ore, L

    Dalle Ore, C. M., Dalle Ore, L. V., Roush, T. L., et al. 2013, Icarus, 222, 307, 10.1016/j.icarus.2012.11.015

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    I., & Murray-Clay, R

    Dawson, R. I., & Murray-Clay, R. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 750, 43, 10.1088/0004-637X/750/1/43

    2012 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Laird, N

    Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. 1977, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 39, 1, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1977.tb01600.x

    1977

  24. [32]

    A., Romon, J., & Veillet, C

    Doressoundiram, A., Barucci, M. A., Romon, J., & Veillet, C. 2001, Icarus, 154, 277, 10.1006/icar.2001.6724

    2001

  25. [33]

    2002, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24, 381, 10.1109/34.990138

    Figueiredo, M., & Jain, A. 2002, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24, 381, 10.1109/34.990138

    2002 doi

  26. [34]

    C., & Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., & Brown, M. E. 2012, Astrophysical Journal, 749, 33, 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/33

    2012 doi

  27. [35]

    C., Brown, M

    Fraser, W. C., Brown, M. E., Morbidelli, A., Parker, A., & Batygin, K. 2014, Astrophysical Journal, 782, 100, 10.1088/0004-637X/782/2/100

    2014 doi

  28. [36]

    C., Pike, R

    Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., Marsset, M., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 80, 10.3847/PSJ/acc844

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    A., de Sanctis, M

    Fulchignoni, M., Belskaya, I., Barucci, M. A., de Sanctis, M. C., & Doressoundiram, A. 2008, Transneptunian Object Taxonomy . https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ssbn.book..181F

    2008

  30. [38]

    2013, Bayesian Data Analysis, Third Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science (Taylor & Francis)

    Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., et al. 2013, Bayesian Data Analysis, Third Edition, Chapman & Hall/CRC Texts in Statistical Science (Taylor & Francis). https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXL6AQAAQBAJ

    2013

  31. [39]

    G., & Vanlaerhoven , C

    Gladman , B., Marsden , B. G., & Vanlaerhoven , C. 2008, Nomenclature in the Outer Solar System , ed. M. A. Barucci , H. Boehnhardt , D. P. Cruikshank , A. Morbidelli , & R. Dotson (University of Arizona Press), 43--57

    2008

  32. [40]

    2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 203, 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2021, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 59, 203, 10.1146/annurev-astro-120920-010005

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    M., Petit, J

    Gladman, B., Lawler, S. M., Petit, J. M., et al. 2012, Astronomical Journal, 144, 23, 10.1088/0004-6256/144/1/23

    2012 doi

  34. [42]

    Gomes, R. S. 2003, Icarus, 161, 404, 10.1016/S0019-1035(02)00056-8

    2003 doi

  35. [43]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 54, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac559a

    Huang, Y., Gladman, B., & Volk, K. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 259, 54, 10.3847/1538-4365/ac559a

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    2023, yuzie007/mpltern: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8025024

    Ikeda, Y. 2023, yuzie007/mpltern: 1.0.0, 1.0.0, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.8025024

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    M., Tyson, J

    Ivezi \'c , Z ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    2019 doi

  39. [47]

    1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn

    Jeffreys, H. 1961, Theory of Probability, 3rd edn. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press)

    1961

  40. [48]

    2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 56, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa1a4

    Jewitt, D. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 56, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaa1a4

    2018 doi

  41. [49]

    C., & Luu, J

    Jewitt, D. C., & Luu, J. X. 2001, The Astronomical Journal, 122, 2099, 10.1086/323304

    2001 doi

  42. [50]

    2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al. 2001--, SciPy : Open source scientific tools for Python . http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  43. [51]

    A., & Sheppard, S

    Kaib, N. A., & Sheppard, S. S. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 133, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/5/133

    2016 doi

  44. [52]

    J., Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., et al

    Kavelaars, J. J., Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2c72

    2021 doi

  45. [53]

    C., Lin, H

    Khain, T., Becker, J. C., Lin, H. W., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 159, 133, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab7002

    2020 doi

  46. [54]

    2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    Lacerda, P., Fornasier, S., Lellouch, E., et al. 2014, The Astrophysical Journal, 793, L2, 10.1088/2041-8205/793/1/L2

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LLVM '15 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  48. [56]

    M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J

    Lawler, S. M., Shankman, C., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 197, 10.3847/1538-3881/aab8ff

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Pike, R

    Lawler, S. M., Pike, R. E., Kaib, N., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 253, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab1c4c

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.13970, 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970

    Lewis , A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1910.13970, 10.48550/arXiv.1910.13970

    2019 doi arXiv

  51. [59]

    M., & Raftery, A

    Lewis, S. M., & Raftery, A. E. 1997, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 92, 648, 10.2307/2965712

    1997 doi

  52. [60]

    Lin, H. W., W. Gerdes, D., J. Hamilton, S., et al. 2019, Icarus, 321, 426, 10.1016/j.icarus.2018.12.006

    2019 doi

  53. [61]

    1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 2310, 10.1086/118184

    Luu, J., & Jewitt, D. 1996, The Astronomical Journal, 112, 2310, 10.1086/118184

    1996 doi

  54. [62]

    S., & Mukai , T

    Lykawka , P. S., & Mukai , T. 2005, , 53, 1175, 10.1016/j.pss.2004.12.015

    2005 doi

  55. [63]

    2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 143, 10.3847/2515-5172/ace4c3

    Malhotra , R., & Roy , S. 2023, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 7, 143, 10.3847/2515-5172/ace4c3

    2023 doi

  56. [64]

    Markwardt, L., Wen Lin, H., Gerdes, D., & Adams, F. C. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 135, 10.3847/PSJ/ace528

    2023 doi

  57. [65]

    C., Pike, R

    Marsset, M., Fraser, W. C., Pike, R. E., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 94, 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf72e

    2019 doi

  58. [66]

    C., Schwamb, M

    Marsset, M., Fraser, W. C., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 160, 10.3847/PSJ/ace7d0

    2023 doi

  59. [67]

    C., Malhotra, R., & Keane, J

    Matheson, I. C., Malhotra, R., & Keane, J. T. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 522, 3298, 10.1093/mnras/stad1208

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    Melchior, P., & Goulding, A. D. 2018, Astronomy and Computing, 25, 183, 10.1016/j.ascom.2018.09.013

    2018 doi

  61. [69]

    P., Paprocki, M., et al

    Meurer, A., Smith, C. P., Paprocki, M., et al. 2017, PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e103, 10.7717/peerj-cs.103

    2017 doi

  62. [70]

    2000, Estimating a Dirichlet distribution, Technical report, MIT

    Minka, T. 2000, Estimating a Dirichlet distribution, Technical report, MIT

    2000

  63. [71]

    2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed

    Morbidelli , A., & Nesvorn \'y , D. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed. D. Prialnik , M. A. Barucci , & L. Young , 25--59, 10.1016/B978-0-12-816490-7.00002-3

    2020 doi

  64. [72]

    2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed

    M \"u ller , T., Lellouch , E., & Fornasier , S. 2020, in The Trans-Neptunian Solar System, ed. D. Prialnik , M. A. Barucci , & L. Young , 153--181, 10.1016/B978-0-12-816490-7.00007-2

    2020 doi

  65. [73]

    J., & Adams , F

    Napier , K. J., & Adams , F. C. 2022, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 6, 46, 10.3847/2515-5172/ac5b6c

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    J., Lin, H

    Napier, K. J., Lin, H. W., Gerdes, D. W., et al. 2024, The Planetary Science Journal, 5, 50, 10.3847/PSJ/ad1528

    2024 doi

  67. [75]

    2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo , ed

    Neal, R. 2011, in Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo , ed. S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, & X.-L. Meng, Vol. 20116022 (Chapman and Hall/CRC), 10.1201/b10905-6

    2011 doi

  68. [76]

    2015 a , Astronomical Journal, 150, 73, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/73

    Nesvorný, D. 2015 a , Astronomical Journal, 150, 73, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/73

    2015 doi

  69. [77]

    2015 b , Astronomical Journal, 150, 68, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/68

    ---. 2015 b , Astronomical Journal, 150, 68, 10.1088/0004-6256/150/3/68

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 94, 10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/94

    Nesvorný, D., & Vokrouhlický, D. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 825, 94, 10.3847/0004-637x/825/2/94

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 46, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab98fb

    Nesvorný, D., Vokrouhlický, D., Alexandersen, M., et al. 2020, The Astronomical Journal, 160, 46, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab98fb

    2020 doi

  72. [80]

    Nielsen, S. F. 2000, Bernoulli, 6, 457, 10.2307/3318671

    2000 doi

  73. [81]

    Oliphant, T. E. 2015, Guide to NumPy, 2nd edn. (USA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform)

    2015

  74. [82]

    2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    Peixinho, N., Delsanti, A., & Doressoundiram, A. 2015, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 577, A35, 10.1051/0004-6361/201425436

    2015 doi

  75. [83]

    J., et al

    Petit, J.-M., Gladman, B., Kavelaars, J. J., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 947, L4, 10.3847/2041-8213/acc525

    2023 doi

  76. [84]

    M., Kavelaars, J

    Petit, J. M., Kavelaars, J. J., Gladman, B. J., et al. 2011, Astronomical Journal, 142, 10.1088/0004-6256/142/4/131

    2011 doi

  77. [85]

    E., Fraser, W

    Pike, R. E., Fraser, W. C., Schwamb, M. E., et al. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 101, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa83b1

    2017 doi

  78. [86]

    E., Proudfoot, B

    Pike, R. E., Proudfoot, B. C., Ragozzine, D., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 10.1038/s41550-019-0867-z

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    E., Fraser, W

    Pike, R. E., Fraser, W. C., Volk, K., et al. 2023, The Planetary Science Journal, 4, 200, 10.3847/PSJ/ace2c2

    2023 doi

  80. [88]

    2007, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press)

    Press, W. 2007, Numerical Recipes 3rd Edition: The Art of Scientific Computing, Numerical Recipes: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press). https://books.google.com/books?id=1aAOdzK3FegC

    2007

  81. [89]

    2024, personal communication

    Proudfoot, B., & Ragozzine, D. 2024, personal communication

    2024

  82. [90]

    Proudfoot, B. C. N., Fernández-Valenzuela, E., Stansberry, J. A., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 168, 269, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad864e

    2024 doi

  83. [91]

    Proudfoot, B. C. N., & Ragozzine, D. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 157, 230, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab19c4

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    Pérez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 21, 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  85. [93]

    Ragozzine, D., & Brown, M. E. 2007, The Astronomical Journal, 134, 2160, 10.1086/522334

    2007 doi

  86. [94]

    2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    Rein, H., & Liu, S.-F. 2012, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 537, A128, 10.1051/0004-6361/201118085

    2012 doi

  87. [95]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    Rein, H., & Tamayo, D. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 452, 376, 10.1093/mnras/stv1257

    2015 doi

  88. [96]

    Rubin, D. B. 1976, Biometrika, 63, 581, 10.1093/biomet/63.3.581

    1976 doi

  89. [97]

    Russell , H. N. 1916, , 43, 173, 10.1086/142244

    1916 doi

  90. [98]

    E., Fraser, W

    Schwamb, M. E., Fraser, W. C., Bannister, M. T., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 243, 12, 10.3847/1538-4365/ab2194

    2019 doi

  91. [99]

    R., Benecchi, S

    Showalter, M. R., Benecchi, S. D., Buie, M. W., et al. 2021, Icarus, 356, 114098, 10.1016/j.icarus.2020.114098

    2021

  92. [100]

    C., Smith, P., Kalyanam, R., et al

    Song, X. C., Smith, P., Kalyanam, R., et al. 2022, in Practice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing 2022: Revolutionary: Computing, Connections, You, PEARC '22 (New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery), 10.1145/3491418.3530766

    2022

  93. [101]

    A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al

    Stern, S. A., Bagenal, F., Ennico, K., et al. 2015, Science, 350, aad1815, 10.1126/science.aad1815

    2015 doi

  94. [102]

    A., Weaver, H

    Stern, S. A., Weaver, H. A., Spencer, J. R., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 10.1126/science.aaw9771

    2019 doi

  95. [103]

    C., & Romanishin, W

    Tegler, S. C., & Romanishin, W. 1998, Nature, 392, 49, 10.1038/32108

    1998 doi

  96. [104]

    2000, Nature, 407, 979, 10.1038/35039572

    ---. 2000, Nature, 407, 979, 10.1038/35039572

    2000 doi

  97. [105]

    C., Romanishin, W., & G

    Tegler, S. C., Romanishin, W., & G. J. Consolmagno, S. J. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 210, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/6/210

    2016 doi

  98. [106]

    E., Gerdes, D

    Trilling, D. E., Gerdes, D. W., Jurić, M., et al. 2024, The Astronomical Journal, 167, 132, 10.3847/1538-3881/ad1529

    2024 doi

  99. [107]

    A., & Brown, M

    Trujillo, C. A., & Brown, M. E. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 566, L125, 10.1086/339437

    2002 doi

  100. [108]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 49, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab24e1

    Van Laerhoven, C., Gladman, B., Volk, K., et al. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 49, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab24e1

    2019 doi

  101. [109]

    2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    Volk, K., & Malhotra, R. 2019, The Astronomical Journal, 158, 64, 10.3847/1538-3881/ab2639

    2019 doi

  102. [110]

    2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 23, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    Volk, K., Murray-Clay, R., Gladman, B., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 152, 23, 10.3847/0004-6256/152/1/23

    2016 doi

  103. [111]

    Willmer, C. N. A. 2018, 10.3847/1538-4365/aabfdf

    2018 doi

  104. [112]

    Wong, I., & Brown, M. E. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 153, 145, 10.3847/1538-3881/aa60c3

    2017 doi

  105. [113]

    Wu, C. F. J. 1983, The Annals of Statistics, 11, 95. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2240463

    1983

  106. [114]

    N., & Goodman, J

    Youdin, A. N., & Goodman, J. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 620, 459, 10.1086/426895

    2005 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.